The Baby Bust: Why Are There No Infants to Adopt? (meeting, orphanages)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Today, it isn't minorities who are getting pregnant and keeping their babies as much as working-class whilt girls who want to escape their families, get funded for a new apartment, and a place to entertain teenage boys. .
Where do teenage girls get apartments when they have babies? Who funds that? TANF? There are certainly no funds in my area that would provide an apartment for a teen mom. There are a some charities that help a few parenting teens with housing but this is very limited and only help a few dozen a year. Having a baby is certainly not a ticket to get out of your parent's house. Getting section 8 or public housing takes years.
How exactly do these girls get these apartments? Maybe your area is different from most of the country.
I think more children could be made available if -
Quote:
1. children in foster care were put first. There are certain things that common sense SHOULD tell anyone will have bad outcomes". When parents break every bone in a child's body THERE SHOULD BE NO SECOND CHANCE. There are other physical, emotional, and sexual assaults that can not be taught away. Burning a child. Leaving a child outside overnight as discipline, Anything that shows sadism or contempt for the child. These should be CLEAR RED FLAGS that this person or people are NOT FIT TO RAISE children. In fact, they aren't fit to have a pet.
Actually in cases of severe abuse and a few other issues there are no second chances and efforts for reunification does not have to be made. When this is the situation a judge can terminate parental rights immediately. Most children taken into foster do not fall into this category. Most kids are removed from their parents for neglect.
Quote:
2, If teenagers, people under 21, have children in order to obtain governmental assistance and live away from their parents. Or if they display incorrigibility - (such as Casey Anthony who was murdered by her mother but found innocent,) they should be monitored by social services. There should be ZERO financial incentive in having a child. Such as an apartment.
I'm not familiar with your area but in any area I am familiar with there are no such governmental benefits.
Quote:
3. Do away with foster care. Few Foster Parents are in it for anything other than the money. Taking care of other people's children is a difficult task. Abuse regularly takes place in foster care.
Foster care is misdirected in its intent. Reunification should NOT be the goal. The welfare of the child should be the goal.
What would you suggest as an alternative? Adoption is not a feasible alternative for the majority of foster kids who are not babies or toddlers. I was 12 when I went into foster care. There aren't a whole bunch of people lining up to adopt 12-year olds or sibling groups with several kids.
In my personal experience most foster parents aren't in it for the money at all. It actually doesn't pay that much. There are actually people who want to help kids.
Abuse in foster care definitely does happen but I think it's a huge exaggeration to say that it "regularly takes place".
I agree that the welfare of the child should come first. I think most people agree with this. Research has shown that kids actually do best in their biological families so in most cases reunification is in the best interest of the child.
Quote:
Children are safer in homes with screened professional workers who deal with them in 7-8 hour increments. There is no less transparency than in a private home. Frequently, foster homes are only one or two notches higher than where they were removed. When biological children are involved there is blatant favoritism. I have read and heard horror stories. Less damaged more adoptable children will be the result.
I don't think you really know what you're talking about. We do have kids in homes with screened workers that work 8 hour shifts. They are called group homes, shelters or residential centers. These are far inferior from foster homes, especially for young children, and, in my personal experience, far more abusive than foster homes. I've been slammed into walls, kicked down the stairs, had my hair pulled, my arm twisted behind my back (a favorite) and been mocked and bullied by staff in these kids of facilities.
Children need stable relationships with adults they can trust, especially little ones. It's almost impossible to develop such relationships when your substitute parent goes home at 4 o'clock. Children should be in families. If it can't be their family it should be another suitable family. There is a reason why we've moved away from institutional care. Nobody with any experience with traumatized kids would advocate what you do.
Quote:
4, Encourage anti-abortion teenagers to relinquish their parental rights instead of enabling them to keep their babies. This is what "crisis pregnancy centers" do now.
As mentioned, research shows that children do best with adequate bio families. Adoption is always second best. Plenty of young parents can be very good parents, especially with support.
Quote:
5. Redefine "family". An unplanned child born out of wedlock does not a family make. Sex makes a child and nothing more.
An unplanned child born out of wedlock definitely can make up a family though. Plenty of happy, healthy, well adjusted children are born into families like these.
Quote:
6. Reward women who relinquish their children. With education. Incentives. Right now society rewards unplanned pregnancy on the part of minor children.
Society doesn't reward unplanned pregnancies. It improves the conditions of the children.
I'm not sure what you base your opinions on but research and personal experiences thoroughly refutes it.
It's too bad so many of these kids are waiting for permanent homes because they aren't infants anymore. Yes, some have issues, but so do many children living in their birth families. I volunteer with a program at our local hospital holding and soothing newborn babies undergoing withdrawal from drugs their mothers took while pregnant, and I have nothing but the utmost admiration for the families that foster and adopt these infants, because they have hearts so big they don't have to have the "perfect" baby.
Madonna basically buying a child from Malawi to circumvent the home study process? Another travesty. If she felt called to adopt from Africa, there were countries open at the time. Madonna acts as though the rules do not apply to her.
Madonna acts like the rules apply to her because they pretty much don't.
But this is nothing new. In the 1930's and 40's it was practically impossible for a single woman to adopt. Unless, of course, your name was Joan Crawford.
I think more children could be made available if -
1. children in foster care were put first. There are certain things that common sense SHOULD tell anyone will have bad outcomes". When parents break every bone in a child's body THERE SHOULD BE NO SECOND CHANCE. There are other physical, emotional, and sexual assaults that can not be taught away. Burning a child. Leaving a child outside overnight as discipline, Anything that shows sadism or contempt for the child. These should be CLEAR RED FLAGS that this person or people are NOT FIT TO RAISE children. In fact, they aren't fit to have a pet.
2, If teenagers, people under 21, have children in order to obtain governmental assistance and live away from their parents. Or if they display incorrigibility - (such as Casey Anthony who was murdered by her mother but found innocent,) they should be monitored by social services. There should be ZERO financial incentive in having a child. Such as an apartment.
3. Do away with foster care. Few Foster Parents are in it for anything other than the money. Taking care of other people's children is a difficult task. Abuse regularly takes place in foster care.
Foster care is misdirected in its intent. Reunification should NOT be the goal. The welfare of the child should be the goal.
Children are safer in homes with screened professional workers who deal with them in 7-8 hour increments. There is no less transparency than in a private home. Frequently, foster homes are only one or two notches higher than where they were removed. When biological children are involved there is blatant favoritism. I have read and heard horror stories. Less damaged more adoptable children will be the result.
4, Encourage anti-abortion teenagers to relinquish their parental rights instead of enabling them to keep their babies. This is what "crisis pregnancy centers" do now.
5. Redefine "family". An unplanned child born out of wedlock does not a family make. Sex makes a child and nothing more.
6. Reward women who relinquish their children. With education. Incentives. Right now society rewards unplanned pregnancy on the part of minor children.
I definitely disagree strongly with number 3 doing away with foster homes. I have licensed foster homes and the majority of people don’t do it for the money. They do it because they love children. Children don’t belong in institutional. Much of the money people receive goes to food and clothing for the kids. Foster kids are very hard on toys and they have to be replaced.
It's too bad so many of these kids are waiting for permanent homes because they aren't infants anymore. Yes, some have issues, but so do many children living in their birth families. I volunteer with a program at our local hospital holding and soothing newborn babies undergoing withdrawal from drugs their mothers took while pregnant, and I have nothing but the utmost admiration for the families that foster and adopt these infants, because they have hearts so big they don't have to have the "perfect" baby.
I am very familiar with trying to adopt some of these foster children, as we tried to do it in two different states.
1. Our goal was to adopt a child through the State of Kansas. We got a homestudy and were approved. We asked about children in the photolisting, the weekly newspaper and from those that appeared on "Wednesday's Child". We were always discouraged by the social worker that had our case, as the children had severe behavioral issues, and a few would have posed a danger to our older son. These children had serious mental health issues that the standard family would have a very hard time dealing with. After 3 years, we contacted an agency with a sliding fee, and being interested in a child with special needs, and having registered with the Down Syndrome Adoption Exchange, we had two referrals after 3 months. We adopted through a private agency, an infant with special needs. We got a call about the baby (a surprise since we were looking for a school age child), and the next week met him on Thursday and picked him up the next day.
2. We decided we might want to adopt again, another special needs child in AZ. We ran into the same thing again. Were there 3 years and moved with no referrals, except one, and the child would not have been a good fit.
In both states, we were told at least once that the child was already placed, and also twice that the child, since we expressed an interest, was being put in permanent foster care. Later, I did see the child was not placed, but held by the state.
It is called the adoption maze, and it doesn't surprise me when someone chooses to do a foreign adoption at all.
I had a friend in AZ that fostered babies born drug addicted, and once through withdrawal, they were adopted.
It has been my experience that when it comes to "nuture vs nature", my money is on "nature". Love does not "cure", no matter what the dose is. I read everything available on adoption for probably at least a decade, books and two magazine subscriptions that dealt only with adoption.
I get a little tired of people talking about all of these available children, and how people want "perfect" or infants, as I know that is not true in many cases.
Babies with Down syndrome? There is a long waiting list of ready for the call with all paperwork complete, the last I checked, it was over 100, and that was probably a decade ago. Rarely are children with Down syndrome even available, as they don't often land in the public system. Children born with other disabilities often have advocate organizations that get them adopted, before the state gets their hands on them.
Most states do a poor job when it comes to foster care, but "work count" is the name of the game!
I am very familiar with trying to adopt some of these foster children, as we tried to do it in two different states.
1. Our goal was to adopt a child through the State of Kansas. We got a homestudy and were approved. We asked about children in the photolisting, the weekly newspaper and from those that appeared on "Wednesday's Child". We were always discouraged by the social worker that had our case, as the children had severe behavioral issues, and a few would have posed a danger to our older son. These children had serious mental health issues that the standard family would have a very hard time dealing with. After 3 years, we contacted an agency with a sliding fee, and being interested in a child with special needs, and having registered with the Down Syndrome Adoption Exchange, we had two referrals after 3 months. We adopted through a private agency, an infant with special needs. We got a call about the baby (a surprise since we were looking for a school age child), and the next week met him on Thursday and picked him up the next day.
2. We decided we might want to adopt again, another special needs child in AZ. We ran into the same thing again. Were there 3 years and moved with no referrals, except one, and the child would not have been a good fit.
In both states, we were told at least once that the child was already placed, and also twice that the child, since we expressed an interest, was being put in permanent foster care. Later, I did see the child was not placed, but held by the state.
It is called the adoption maze, and it doesn't surprise me when someone chooses to do a foreign adoption at all.
I had a friend in AZ that fostered babies born drug addicted, and once through withdrawal, they were adopted.
It has been my experience that when it comes to "nuture vs nature", my money is on "nature". Love does not "cure", no matter what the dose is. I read everything available on adoption for probably at least a decade, books and two magazine subscriptions that dealt only with adoption.
I get a little tired of people talking about all of these available children, and how people want "perfect" or infants, as I know that is not true in many cases.
Babies with Down syndrome? There is a long waiting list of ready for the call with all paperwork complete, the last I checked, it was over 100, and that was probably a decade ago. Rarely are children with Down syndrome even available, as they don't often land in the public system. Children born with other disabilities often have advocate organizations that get them adopted, before the state gets their hands on them.
Most states do a poor job when it comes to foster care, but "work count" is the name of the game!
Unfortunately many people don’t understand the real lifelong challenges some waiting children may have. The fact is well run, loving group homes have a place for some high-needs children and ultimately adults that will need interventional guidance though out life.
Too many are shopping for wet born infants, waiting for the tragedy of an infant losing their family. They shouldn't be parents anyway with such an attitude. Instead, they should rejoice that there are less infants to adopt. Then go help a child in need...cause that's the CORRECT purpose of fostering or adopting.
I think more children could be made available if -
1. children in foster care were put first. There are certain things that common sense SHOULD tell anyone will have bad outcomes". When parents break every bone in a child's body THERE SHOULD BE NO SECOND CHANCE. There are other physical, emotional, and sexual assaults that can not be taught away. Burning a child. Leaving a child outside overnight as discipline, Anything that shows sadism or contempt for the child. These should be CLEAR RED FLAGS that this person or people are NOT FIT TO RAISE children. In fact, they aren't fit to have a pet.
2, If teenagers, people under 21, have children in order to obtain governmental assistance and live away from their parents. Or if they display incorrigibility - (such as Casey Anthony who was murdered by her mother but found innocent,) they should be monitored by social services. There should be ZERO financial incentive in having a child. Such as an apartment.
3. Do away with foster care. Few Foster Parents are in it for anything other than the money. Taking care of other people's children is a difficult task. Abuse regularly takes place in foster care.
Foster care is misdirected in its intent. Reunification should NOT be the goal. The welfare of the child should be the goal.
Children are safer in homes with screened professional workers who deal with them in 7-8 hour increments. There is no less transparency than in a private home. Frequently, foster homes are only one or two notches higher than where they were removed. When biological children are involved there is blatant favoritism. I have read and heard horror stories. Less damaged more adoptable children will be the result.
4, Encourage anti-abortion teenagers to relinquish their parental rights instead of enabling them to keep their babies. This is what "crisis pregnancy centers" do now.
5. Redefine "family". An unplanned child born out of wedlock does not a family make. Sex makes a child and nothing more.
6. Reward women who relinquish their children. With education. Incentives. Right now society rewards unplanned pregnancy on the part of minor children.
That is misdirected, imo. Society does not “reward” teen pregnancy. There is a lifelong earnings penalty for not finishing school before having kids. Government provided housing is likely to be very bare-bones.
That is misdirected, imo. Society does not “reward” teen pregnancy. There is a lifelong earnings penalty for not finishing school before having kids. Government provided housing is likely to be very bare-bones.
Society may not reward them, but the taxpayers do. Medicaid gives them bonus shopping dollars on a debit card for going to the doctor appointments, community baby showers, plus a check every month along with food assistance and government housing. All the states I am familiar with give a preference to a parent with a child when it comes to any waiting lists for public housing. Government provided housing has been, in the cities where we lived, at least as good as someone with a median income, new places with playgrounds, washer/dryer hookups, etc., and the new thing is that those that live on welfare deserve to live in nice neighborhoods also, so they are movin' on up, and those that have to live by them are movin' on out.
A fair number of girls get pregnant to get out of the house of their parent(s). Many choose to be liberated totally from the parents when the taxpayers pick up the tab! Having a child here under a certain age exempts the parent from looking for a job.
Why are there no infants? We all know the answer.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
